W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-dom-xpath@w3.org > May 2000

Re: [dom-xpath] Competing Proposals Proposal

From: Francis Norton <francis@redrice.com>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 08:57:16 +0100
Message-ID: <3917C4DC.C936CBF@redrice.com>
To: Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus <Scott_Boag@lotus.com>
CC: www-dom-xpath@w3.org


Scott Boag/CAM/Lotus wrote:
> 
> Francis Norton <francis@redrice.com> wrote:
> > In other words an API that supports both
> > feature sets will be a 2) rather than a 1) in any case.
> 
> I was thinking that 1) would be a method directly on the node, as the
> Microsoft and Oracle methods are today, while 2) would be a separate
> interface, minimal but with an eventual complete interface in mind.
> 
In this case, is the choice between 1) and 2) something like this?:

ease of initial use:	(1) +1;	(2): 0?
ease of implementation:	(1) ?; 	(2) ?
ease of expansion:	(1) -1;	(2) +1

Are there any other big issues? 

I'd be happy to work through my use case and any others suggested using
(1) and (2) syntaxes to investigate the ease of use / slope of learning
curve, once we have a (2)-style proposal. 

Francis.
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2000 03:59:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:07 UTC